Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
Analysis

Conflicts cause FDA to review advisory committees

Wayne Kondro
CMAJ July 04, 2006 175 (1) 23; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.060636
Wayne Kondro
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Critics have lately cast the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s scientific advisory panels as little more than partially owned subsidiaries of the pharmaceuticals industry. In fact, one influential US Congressman is so outraged by the degree to which panels are replete with scientists who sport financial conflicts of interest that for the second consecutive year, he has successfully attached a rider to the FDA budget that would prohibit the agency from using panelists so conflicted.

Facing a political firestorm stoked by conflicting studies1 and a barrage of negative publicity,2–5 the FDA in May announced a major internal review of its Advisory Committee Meeting system, its typical means of garnering expert advice on scientific issues around drugs. Roughly 20% of the 35– 40 new “chemical entities” approved by the FDA each year are subject to external panel review.

Among aspects of this major review are an examination of the FDA's appointment process for the members of its 16 drug committees and 32 other advisory panels, and whether it needs to modify its practices for handling conflicts of interest among panelists.

Currently, the FDA allows conflicted scientists to apply for a “waiver” that permits them panel membership on the grounds that their individual expertise outweighs the seriousness of the conflict. Health Canada allows similar exemptions, although without a formal waiver process. Rather, conflicts are publicly declared or limits are placed on an individual “in the development of the panel's advice through a variety of mechanisms under the direction of the panel chair,” says spokesperson Carole Saindon. She adds that Health Canada's approach to conflicts of interest is more rigorous than that of similar organizations in other nations, since “candidates who could receive direct financial benefit from a regulatory decision [such as company shareholders] are excluded from panel membership.”

Such an automatic prohibition does not appear to be the goal of the FDA review. Spokesperson Crystal Rice says that the agency has no intention of changing its policies to prohibit conflicted scientists from serving on a panel, but will examine “our processes and procedures for implementing the current laws.”

Figure

Figure. US Congressman Maurice Hinchey (Democrat–NY), critic of the Food and Drug Administration. Photo by: Canapress

That, however, is unlikely to satisfy critics, led by Congressman Maurice Hinchey (Democrat–NY), a member of the influential House Appropriations Committee, who hold that such conflicts completely compromise the value of scientific advice. Last fall, Hinchey convinced the US House of Representatives to deny budget appropriations to the FDA unless it discontinued its practice of granting waivers. But in a subsequent political compromise with the Senate, reached during the budget process, the rider was lifted on the proviso that the FDA disclose potential conflicts and post them on its Web site 15 days before each meeting. The issues of an outright prohibition of participation by conflicted scientists and FDA's use of waivers were referred to the powerful Government Accountability Office for review.

Since then, a new study1 found that in 2001–2004, the FDA recused less than 1% of conflicted scientists; and that, of the roughly 3000 advisory committee members who participated in the FDA's 221 drug-review meetings, some 28% had a conflict of financial interest with the affected company or product competitors within the preceding year. In the wake of that report, Hinchey again mustered enough political support to attach an identical rider in May to the FDA budget covering the 2006/07 fiscal year.

Although many laud the openness and transparency of the FDA's advisory committee system as an example to the world, the betting is that the agency's international reputation will not permit it to escape politically imposed change, especially after its recent avalanche of controversies. One was the study published in April by Peter Lurie (deputy director of the Washington-based consumer-advocacy Public Citizen's Health Group) and colleagues,1 which found that conflicts of interest are rampant within FDA drug panels: in 2001–2004, a financial conflict of interest with the affected company was had by one or more panelists in 73% of the 221 drug reviews conducted by the FDA's 16 advisory committees. Only 1% of members were recused, although many conflicts were substantial: some 30% involved investments exceeding US$25 000; another 23%, grants or contracts topping $100 000. Lurie and colleagues nevertheless concluded that the outcomes of votes by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research advisory committee essentially were uncompromised: excluding conflicted panelists would not have changed outcomes, but only reduced the vote margins.1

Another controversy involves an examination by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI),2 at the request of the New York Times, of a 32-member panel that had studied the cardiovascular risk of COX-2 inhibitors, controversial painkillers that include celecoxib (Celebrex), refecoxib (Vioxx) and valdecoxib (Bextra). Its widely publicized conclusion was that the panel would have voted differently on whether the drugs should be on the market if the 10 members with direct financial interests in the drug manufacturers had been excluded from participation.

Another storm began in March of this year when David Graham, Director for Science and Medicine of the Office of Drug Safety (and an FDA whistleblower), told the National Press Club that the Office of New Drugs (OND)'s authority over FDA advisory committees is heavily biased in industry's favour. In calling for structural reforms to provide more separation between the drug safety and drug review functions of the FDA, Graham said the OND had too much control over panel appointments, the assignment of drugs to specific committees and what information is presented to panelists. He also criticized the FDA's financial disclosure rules as being lax.

Other conflict allegations have been made about the advisory panels studying silicone breast implants,3 the labelling of high-blood-pressure drugs4 and of Tysabri,5 a drug to treat multiple sclerosis. Much of the ensuing debate has focused on whether prohibiting conflicted scientists from sitting on a panel would, because the pool of available experts is limited, compromise the quality of scientific advice ultimately received. Merrill Goozner, CSPI Director of Integrity in Science, dismissed that notion as disingenuous, calling it offensive to suggest that only the best and brightest work for industry. There is a plethora of qualified and nonconflicted experts, he says, and the FDA is reluctant to expand panel membership to include more epidemiologists. “This should be turned into more of a deliberative body without a stake in the outcome, rather than a kind of good-old-boy network of people whose primary interest is to get their hands on a new therapy, either to test or for [their own] patients.”

Peter Lurie is convinced that the FDA must move to broaden committee composition and adopt more stringent standards for determining when waivers will be granted, rather than automatically rubber-stamping them, as now appears the case. “A person goes on an advisory committee and they don't know what votes are going to come up in the future,” he points out. “To ensure [a panel] without conflict of interest is either to recuse absolutely everybody, no matter how remote the conflict of interest, or to never allow anybody who's ever had any investment, of any kind, on the committee in the first place, in the possibility that a drug in which they've been involved might later come up.” Because that is simply impractical, he adds, “there needs to be more hard-and-fast rules about who will be recused — and the barriers should be set lower.”

Yet, change is unlikely to come from within the FDA, Lurie forecasts. “The most striking thing about this ... is that the FDA thinks that an internal committee to review an external advisory committee process is the way to go. It's just totally illogical, and it really raises questions about the sincerity of the effort.”

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Lurie P, Almeida CM, Stine N, et al; Public Citizen's Health Research Group. Financial conflict of interest disclosure and voting patterns at Food and Drug Administration Drug Advisory Committee meetings. JAMA 2006;295;1921-8.
  2. 2.↵
    Harris G, Berenson A. Ten voters on panel backing pain pills had industry ties: the 10 government drug advisers with company ties voted 9 to 1 to keep Bextra on the market and 9 to 1 for Vioxx's return. New York Times 2005 Feb 25. An article of the same topic, date and authorship is available: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/25/MNGJTBGQ7H1.DTL (accessed 2007 June 7).
  3. 3.↵
    Eggertson L. Breast implant advisory panel: more study on silicone leakage [news item]. CMAJ 2006;174(4): 443-4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Center for Science in the Public Interest. FDA panel investigating labeling of antihypertensive drugs stacked with industry consultants: draft guidance may miss opportunity to educate Americans about importance of lifestyle, diet on high blood pressure [press release]. Washington: The Center; 2006 Apr 24. Available through www.cspinet.org/integrity/press_releases.html (accessed 2007 June 7).
  5. 5.↵
    Henderson D. No end to FDA disclosure debate: new waiver law fails to quiet criticism over experts' financial ties to drug companies. Boston Globe 2006 Apr 21. Available: www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/04/21/no_end_to_fda_disclosure_debate (accessed 2006 June 7).
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 175 (1)
CMAJ
Vol. 175, Issue 1
4 Jul 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Canadian Adverse Reaction Newsletter (p 109-116)

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Conflicts cause FDA to review advisory committees
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Conflicts cause FDA to review advisory committees
Wayne Kondro
CMAJ Jul 2006, 175 (1) 23; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060636

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Conflicts cause FDA to review advisory committees
Wayne Kondro
CMAJ Jul 2006, 175 (1) 23; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060636
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • Dans ce numéro
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Is Canada missing out? An assessment of drugs approved internationally between 2016 and 2020 and not submitted for Health Canada review
  • Questioning physicians about health conditions at medical licensure registration: How should policy evolve in Canada?
  • Physician workforce planning in Canada: the importance of accounting for population aging and changing physician hours of work
Show more Analysis

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Drug regulation
    • Global health
    • Medical ethics

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire